A. The case holding that the judgment of the court below that held the plaintiff's literature as an organization similar to a clan not a clan with its own meaning is erroneous

B. The plaintiff's assertion that the nature of the original clan is changed to a clan similar to that of the clan

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the donation under the plaintiff's text

A. The case holding that the judgment of the court below that held the plaintiff's literature as an organization similar to a clan not a clan with its own meaning is erroneous.

B. If the Plaintiff’s assertion is already confirmed to be a clan of its unique meaning and the Plaintiff’s assertion results in changing the nature of the Plaintiff’s door to a similar organization of a clan, it shall not be permitted as it brings about the change

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the donation under the plaintiff's text

(a)Article 31 of the Civil Code, Article 48(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 187 of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Da48632 delivered on May 10, 1994, 93Da5395 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1992, 1684), 92Da15048 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong192, 2964), 93Da5395 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 165), 92Da2899 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 2964), 92Da15048 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong192, 2964)

Attorney Park Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant from among the Chungcheong Dang-Jakak-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na649 delivered on January 26, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. Defendant 1 through 13, 15, and 16’s attorney Yang Young-young, Defendant 14’s attorney Kim Jong-young’s ground of appeal No. 4, respectively, and Defendant 1’s attorney Park Il-young’s ground of appeal No. 1 as well as Defendant 1’s ground of appeal (the grounds of appeal as to the Plaintiff’s Yang-young’s supplementary appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the appellate brief are examined to the extent of supplement in case of

A. The judgment of the court below

The plaintiff's claim of this case is based on the court below's determination that the defendants, co-defendant C, and non-party 1, the same non-party 78Gahap673 in Gwangju District Court's case for cancellation of the registration of transfer of land ownership, and the plaintiff of the above final judgment is entitled to grant the succeeding execution clause as the plaintiff of the above final judgment. The court below rejected this decision as follows. The plaintiff of this case submitted the safety objection of this case that there is no standing to seek the execution clause for the above final judgment because the plaintiff of this case is not a party or is not identical to

In other words, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 2 in Chungcheongnam-gun 27 years of age with the non-party 1 in Jungsung-gun 27 years of age and 31 years of age move to Gwangju-gun 7, and went out from Gwangju-gun, and continued to exist without a sexual code as an area naturally created for the promotion of friendship among his descendants, and the family members of Gwangju-gun 7 years of age. Meanwhile, the non-party 4, who is the non-party 2's 37 years of age and 11 years of age, was the non-party 6's co-ownership of the above real estate in his name and the non-party 6's co-ownership of the above real estate in his name and the non-party 7's co-ownership of the above real estate in his name, including the non-party 4's non-party 7's non-party 7's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 8's remaining.

B. Determination of party members

(1) As to the ground of appeal on the substance and party capacity of the Plaintiff’s literature

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was a member of a region formed naturally by descendants residing in the Gwangju metropolitan region by making a common ancestor as a member of the group, but it is not a clan with a unique meaning that all adult male descendants from among the descendants of the common ancestor are members of the group, but it appears to the purport that the organization of a clan similar to a clan that resides in a specific area among the descendants of the common ancestor, or makes only descendants who live in a specific area or have contributed to it as its members is recognized. However, it is hard to accept the court below to accept that the plaintiff constitutes an organization similar to a clan, not a clan with its unique meaning.

First, according to the records, the plaintiff argued that the court of first instance is a clan with a unique meaning composed of descendants of the majority of the clan, while the court of first instance held that the plaintiff's door is a naturally formed door in order to promote the happiness of the common ancestor and the protection of graves and the friendship among the members of the clans, the plaintiff's door excluded the defendant's main defense that is not a party ability. Since the defendant's door exists separately from the plaintiff's own meaning that the defendant's door is not the case's own meaning of the joint establishment of the non-party 2 of the above Chungcheong-gun, and it was revealed that such clan exists, it is clear that the plaintiff's door is the joint establishment of the non-party 2 of the same clans, but it is not the plaintiff's own meaning that the change of the nature of the clans' body that was made by the non-party 3 of the first time in Gwangju-gun area as an organization for the clans of the non-party 2 of this case's clans has already become a non-party's own meaning of the plaintiff's right to register (hereinafter referred to this meaning.).

In addition, while the plaintiff himself is only an organization similar to a clan, on the other hand, the members of the plaintiff's literature correspond to the descendants of the non-party 3 (see, e.g., Chapter 904 of the record). Therefore, even based on the plaintiff's assertion itself, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's literature constitutes a clan of unique meaning that the above non-party 3

Furthermore, according to the records of this case, if the plaintiff's substance is examined, the non-party 1's unique meaning of the non-party 3's clan 1's own name is the non-party 6's clan 1's own name (refer to Chapter 904's records)'s records, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's own meaning is a clan. On the other hand, the plaintiff's minutes of the Seodaemun-gu Council (refer to Chapter 13-4, Chapter 598's records) held on February 7, 198 for the election of the plaintiff's clan 1's representative and the non-party 1's non-party 6's meeting minutes (refer to Chapter 13-8, Chapter 611's records) held on October 21, 1989, the non-party 1's non-party 6's meeting's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's own.

According to the whole purport and records of the plaintiff's argument, it is more reasonable to view that the plaintiff's descendants among the descendants of the above non-party 2 as the non-party 10 who was first fixed in Gwangju or his children as the joint clan group and the non-party 3 who was his children constituted a clan of its own meaning composed of descendants. As such, it does not affect the identity of the party by correcting the unique meaning of the clan from the above non-party 2 to the non-party 10 or non-party 3. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the name of the plaintiff's door alone as the non-party 2 is the non-party 2 of the same clan group, and even though the plaintiff himself claims that the non-party 2 is the non-party 2 of the above clan group, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party 2's own meaning or the non-party 3's own ability to conduct a joint trial by examining whether the defendant is a similar organization of a clan, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) As to the ground of appeal that the Plaintiff is not a legitimate party

Then, this paper examines whether the plaintiff is not a legitimate party or there is no standing to be a party to the appeal, as the plaintiff is not the same person as the plaintiff of the judgment of the Gwangju District Court 78Gahap673 delivered on May 16, 1979, which is the subject of the transfer execution clause of this case.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's sentence received eight parcels of the real estate, etc. 18 from the non-party 4 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership without any reason, and thereafter, when the registration of ownership was completed in the name of the non-party 5 and 9, the judgment of the court below was rendered to the non-party 4 by filing a lawsuit to cancel the registration under the name of 78Gahap673 against the non-party 78Gahap673, and the decision of the court below was made based on the premise or ground that the plaintiff in this case was the same person in the plaintiff's sentence and the above Gwangju District Court 78Gahap673, May 23, 1936. As to this point, it is difficult to accept this as it is because there are

According to the records, the co-defendants of the first instance court appears to be an unincorporated association or foundation that is separate from the above non-party 4's descendants (see, e.g., the written complaint and the written resolution of the general meeting of Byungcheon, etc. of the above non-party 4). According to the literature minutes (No. 5-2 and No. 81 of the record) at the time of filing the lawsuit (see, e.g., the evidence No. 5-2 and No. 81 of the record) of the above Gwangju District Court at the time of the filing of the lawsuit, the 18 parcels of the land, etc. of this case are owned by the original roof (non-party 4) and the Macheon (non-party 11, the children of the above non-party 4). They moved into the name of the Dacheon-gun and moved it into the name of the "Songcheon-gun" to be useful for the beh in the lower court, and thus, it does not appear to have been rejected the above land of this case.

In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 1-75, 76 (No. 537 of the record) of Eul evidence Nos. 1-75, 76 (No. 537 of the record), since the former Mining Group (No. 1 omitted), etc., which is the land of this case, is entered into the land inside the land of Byungcheon company, the purport that the land of this case is owned by Byungcheon company. Furthermore, the non-party 12 and the non-party 13, the guarantor of this case, who was prepared and issued a warranty under the above Act at the time when the land of this case was registered under the Act on Special Measures for Byungcheon company's Name, were the representative of the plaintiff of the lawsuit of this case at the time of the above 78Ra673 (no. 4 of the non-party 4), the non-party 4, as the plaintiff of the lawsuit of this case, stated that the non-party 11, as the plaintiff of this case's children, the defendant 18-2, and the evidence No. 188 of this case

In addition, in other cases, Nonparty 17, who is the cause of the Plaintiff’s literature, testified that Nonparty 17 was the same as the Plaintiff’s literature of this case, and that Nonparty 4 donated the land for Byungcheon and the literature of this case. The Plaintiff’s literature, compared to the absence of any special activity, Byungcheon was actively engaged in managing the land (No. 1-proof No. 50, No. 384-385), and Nonparty 15, who is the cause of the Plaintiff’s literature, testified that Nonparty 4’s above real estate was owned by the Plaintiff’s literature at the time of 65 years prior to the Plaintiff’s literature, but was not organized (No. 13-9, No. 621), and that Nonparty 9, the representative of the Plaintiff, was a relatively active organization of the Plaintiff at the time of donation of the land to the Plaintiff, and that Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s name of this case, which was the Plaintiff’s body of the Plaintiff’s 1,030.

Moreover, in addition, the figures who were born to Sacheon-si Sacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jacheon-Jail and two others, other than the figures of the above Yasung-Jacheon-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-

On the contrary, according to the evidence cited by the court below in holding that the above non-party 4 donated the real estate, etc. in the process of the shockion, which is the title holder of the above registration, the above non-party 15 testimony except for the above non-party 15 testimony (No. 15, No. 768), non-party 16, non-party 17, and non-party 15 testimony (no. 50-52, No. 381 of the evidence No. 15), but their testimony contents are registered in the name of the plaintiff in the name of the real estate of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the real estate of this case was donated to the plaintiff in the form of the plaintiff. In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the real estate of this case was donated to the plaintiff at the time because the plaintiff had not been organized or was organized.

As above, it is evident that the real estate in this case was contributed for the maintenance and management of Byungcheon-gun, and it is not clear whether the above sentence was separately organized around 1936, when the real estate in this case was registered in Chungcheongnam-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-myeon-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-myeon-gun-gun-si, and there was no specific activity thereafter, while Byungcheon-gun operated as an independent organization that manages the above friendship from the time the appeal was filed, it is hard to conclude that the above sentence of this case was established by Byungcheon-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun as pointed out in the grounds of appeal that it was difficult to register the above real estate in the name of Byungcheon-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-myeon-gun-gun-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong.

2. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is to reverse and return the case to the Gwangju High Court, which is the judgment of the court below, for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion as to whether the plaintiff's substance and party ability exists and whether the plaintiff's door is the same as the plaintiff of the judgment of the case of the 78Gahap673 delivered on May 16, 1979. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)